One thing I've wondered about Church Christianity is when the words or Paul contridict with the teachings of Jesus, they seem to reject Jesus and take the words of Paul?
Jesus taught to sinners. I would argue that Judas wasn't a great example of someone who was free of sin.
It's too easy just to be like "Oh, Paul wrote the word of God" when he wrote his letters so Paul is equivalent to Jesus, and I think it is a logical error. We might as well be building altars and worshipping Paul if we are just going to reject Jesus.
My personal opinion is that Paul corrupted Christianity and led the religion astray.
Is Paul equivalent to Jesus? If not then how do you explain the many many contradictions between their writing and teachings? Either the word of Jesus was the word or God or the word of Paul was? They can't both be true.
This is why I reject Paul's writings almost entirely in my path, and I definately don't do what the Church does and prioritize above the teachings of Jesus when they do contridict.
This thread I am looking for a respectful debate.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, you hear this a lot from bussyblasters.
John 16:13 explicitly states
that Jesus 
said further revelations would 
follow 
after his passing. In Corinthians, Paul strategically employs the phrases “not I, but the Lord” and “I, not the Lord” to frame the fuller nature 
of this revelation but not to place 
the two in contradiction to each other. Paul's is an interpretation of Christ's Word, not something which contradicts it and if you insist on separating the two it's possibly because there's something Paul said was a no-no that you want to get into.
The Council of Rome were, apparently, divinely inspired and if they say it's The Word then it's The Word. Go off and be a Delta-Christian Scientist
or something if you're going 
to reject 
Paul because he's the cornerstone of the faith.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I reject the fact that you can't question something because a historical political and economic power merely claimed to be divinely inspired.
I know how Gods speak and talk to people, if they appointed someone to speak on their behalf, they wouldn't have allowed the Church to commit a lot of their atrocities such as censoring the Bible and committing genocide of Christians.
If I speak on behalf of God, then I'll tell you straight up, question me and follow your own heart and intuition.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You are entitled
to reject 
that but even the Greek 
Patriarchs use the Septuagint so you're in David 
Koresh territory 
here.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Why mention that you reject the teachings of the church when you don't believe in the teachings of God himself? The first should be inherent in the second.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I do believe in the teachings of God, I just received a sign from them.
I view the Church as the church of man. Because I believe in the teachings of God, I believe that the Church corrupted them.
https://rdrama.net/h/biofoids/post/261402/i-received-a-weird-sign
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
why link to something unrelated? Also what do you mean by the church of man?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because I didn't post that.
I went on reddit on an inactive account, it was banned for suspicious activity, what it posted was luke 19:47-48.
I didn't post it. I didn't even look up that verse recently or accidentally copy and paste it or anything.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Luke 19:47-48
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
honestly it looks like something you would post are you sure you didnt just forget
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No. I'm pretty sure I didn't. It was on an inactive account.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
what do you think it means if you didnt
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
cute twink alert
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
John 16:13
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The authors of mark, Luke, Mathew and John considered Paul their equal as a bondservant in Christ. You can not logically believe any of their gospels for they considered Paul a fellow apostle. To denounce Paul in the manner you have is to denounce Christ.
Before thinking you are magical, learn the difference between prescriptive and descriptive language. Also learn to cite exact verses when discussing so called issues between texts. Preferably with at least more than one translation and using sources that utilize the original koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic as starting sources. As is, you can't even understand basic religious practices because you are so scaly in your eyes and have a heart hardened.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We don't even know the authors of the Gospel.
That is basically religious studies 101, we know they come from a singular document called the Q source and were translated from it, but we don't know who wrote the Gospels. There is no unified agreememt and still contention to this day among religious scholars.
I denounce Paul because I don't place him as the equivalent of Chirst, that I view as Church dogma.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Shut up, idiot
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
For saying what is commonly accepted and what you will learn in any academic course on the Bible?
Just because it's real, doesn't mean it should trigger you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
no I'm triggered by your mental r-sluration.
where's your husband?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Paul was a pharisee but his word is divinely inspired. He brought rabbinical judaic reasoning to clarifying Christ's word for the day to day. "Do unto others as you would have done to you" is a lot more abstract of a commandment than you might realize
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Where I'm working from, although he may have been Jeusus disciple, he was one of the most conservative of them if not the most, especially when compared to Luke or Thomas. I mean, there was clearly even disagreememt among the disciples, why was Paul the one placed above Jesus and the others censored from history?
I disagree with the fact that he was divinely inspired, I think that is just a way to shut down criticism and thought. The Jesus I met would have wanted me to question his words and be able to think critically. It seems like he tried to free us from outdated laws that were no longer relevant, hence why Christians can eat pork, not just add a new set of outdated laws.
I think he was a man that was taught by Jesus but just human, he still had his own beliefs, judgements, desires present in any human. What I am saying is that Paul wasn't the son of God, or free of Sin regardless on what the Church claims.
I would argue that not even Jesus was free of sin, it's not blasphemy. Jesus didn't cast the first stone. I don't think less of him for that and can relate to him better than being some sinless entity. Jesus had anger, he got angry at the money lenders in the temples. He wasn't perfect because perfection doesn't exist.
Jesus is able to accept and forgive imperfections because he isn't perfect.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The issue is I worship Jesus for how he truly was and not some bastarized version presenting him as perfect.
We are all sinners, why should we be ashamed of that fact? Jesus didn't cast the first stone when he stated "may thee without sin, cast the first stone." Is it so wrong to acknowledge there is a possibility that even the son of God can make mistakes? God in the bible made plenty of them.
I argue that not even Jesus or God was free of sin, why should Paul be considered as sinless?
Name one thing in the universe that is perfect. Clearly the world is far from it. Perfection doesn't exist.
The original sin that severs us from the divine is ignorance. I acknowledge my ignorance, why can't you? Following without questioning instead of listening to your heart or intuition is exactly what Jesus tried to warn us against.
If you want to know why there are so few Christian followers saved during the Day of Judgement? Blame the fricking church for keeping people trapped in ignorance.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's straight up blasphemy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's the truth.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What is sin? Give me your definition
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Do you know what blasphemy of the holy spirit means and why it won't be forgiven? It means living your life with the absence of the spiritual and not developing yourself to live your lives to follow those teachings. It's as simple as the Golden rule, because we are all part of the divine, if you harm someone, you're harming God.
There is nothing spiritual and Jesus out of using his name to hate or oppress others. There is nothing spiritual about following without the freedom to question using your heart, spirit or soul. There is nothing spiritual about using the concept of guilt so people are scared to question and discover higher spiritual truths and a lot of churches are blasphmering the holy spirit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Completely agree, however there
is a difference in “can god sin?” and “god can sin”.
One is a question
and one is a truth 
statement.
The mine and I believe
the common understanding of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 
is the denial of God even up and to Death 
because upon death 
you're no longer able to repent.
Again I really
think 
you should 
talk to a psychiatrist. Please 
get yourself 
help. You seem mentally 
worse than before 
I took a break from the site
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Ignorance.
Simple one word explanation, particularly ignorance of the spiritual, ignorance of God, ignorance of the self. Even Bhudda said that sin was caused by ignorance.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Bhuddism does not have a concept of sin.
God defines sin because sin is a denial of god and his will.
Therefore God is sinless because his will defines sin because god is perfect.
If you're legit you seriously
need a psychiatrist. Not in a mean way but please 
actually 
seek help. I hope you have a wonderful day and actually 
get the help you need
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
s*x is dirty gross sin you should be shameful of, pervert.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
There aren't any contradictions.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There are lots of contridictions.
Have you even read the Bible?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
are you literally r-slurred?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, I've read the Bible.
Jesus did call hypocritical Christians using his name in vain and disobeying his commands sinners, he never called Homosexuals, prostitutes, the same people who Christians hyperfocused on as being sinners.
He did say not to judge, but unless you can actually understand the inner mysteries of his words and parables, it kind of accounted to "don't be a peepee".
I find it sad that people needed a messiah to tell people "hey, just don't be a peepee" and they can't even do that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
where's your husband?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jesus never condemned child male feminists so it must mean he's pro child r*pe. !christians, the mentality of sinners justifying their sin using the Bible
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That is not the mentality displayed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Paul never knew Jesus and was not his contemporary
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Whenever I feel sad, and like I have failed to accomplish great things, I remind myself I am not an SRDine, and my mood instantly lifts.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I'm trying to stick to the main gospels for my arguments.
I'm also using history.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context